Pensacola will appeal Bayview Cross ruling

The City of Pensacola will appeal a federal court ruling ordering the city to remove a longstanding cross in Bayview Park, officials announced Friday.

Mayor Ashton Hayward has retained the services of the Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has agreed to take on the city’s appeal free of charge.

“The Bayview cross has played an important role in the history of Pensacola for over 75 years,” said Hayward. “We have a rich and diverse history that is worth celebrating. The Constitution doesn’t require us to erase our history just because part of that history is religious.”

Four Pensacola residents sued the city in 2015, represented by the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled earlier this month that the placement of the cross at the city-owned Bayview Park was unconstitutional and gave city officials until July 19 to remove it.

“After about 75 years, the Bayview Cross can no longer stand as a permanent fixture on city-owned property,” Vinson wrote in the ruling.

Becket describes itself as a “non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.” In 2015, Becket prevailed over the Freedom From Religion Foundation in case that involved a statue of Jesus on federally-owned land in Montana.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government can recognize the religious aspects of our history and culture without violating the Constitution,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket. “We expect the city will win this case.”

The city on Friday filed a motion asking the court to allow the cross to remain in place while the appeal is ongoing. The American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation plan to continue on the case, FFRF staff attorney Madeline Ziegler said.

The ruling went into great detail about the law on this matter. The city has no basis to overturn that decision and will lose again in appeal wasting time and energy that could address more pressing matters.

Above it reports, “Mayor Ashton Hayward has retained the services of the Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has agreed to take on the city’s appeal free of charge.” The phrase “free of charge” may be interpreted by most citizens to mean that the appeal will be conducted at no expense to city taxpayers. That seems something The Pulse could investigate and report. For example, will Beggs & Lane continue to be retained by the city with regard to this case and if so will Becket pay their legal fees too. There are “costs” other than legal fees associated with appellate litigation. Will Becket pay for those court costs? Finally, if the city loses the appeal, has Becket agreed to pay the plaintiffs legal expenses associated with one or more appeals? That seems unlikely.

In his opinion piece, Commissioner Grover Robinson infers that Judge Roger Vinson incompetently misapplied the law – “This is a misapplication of the law.” – when he gave standing to his county resident Andre Ryland, one of Robinson’s own constituents. That a very strong accusation to make. Judge Vinson explains in a footnote that he did not have to rule on the standing of the other three plaintiffs because one is enough. Judge Vinson found Ryland to have standing, “Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the fourth plaintiff, Mr. Ryland has standing in this action, and that is sufficient.” In its original reply, did the city challenge the standing of Ryland? If not, it seems even more unlikely it would prevail on that point. Further, the Florida Attorney General once issued an opinion advising a state agency that “public parks are held not for the sole use of the people of a particular community but the use of the general public which that Legislature represents. As such, they are of more than local interest and become a concern of the state.” Under that theory, each state resident has a right to enjoy all municipal parks in the state and cities cannot limit access to just city residents, etc. In addition to being a state resident, Ryland is an Escambia County resident with another connection. State law authorizes counties to impose Local Option Sales Taxes whose revenues are used to provide capital improvements to include in Bayview Park and might be used to maintain the cross too. A state law describes two methods for the county to share LOST revenues with municipalities.

The big unanswered question someone should ask the city is what are the grounds for the appeal. Why are they being so secretive unwilling to scream from the mountaintop the grounds for the appeal? I have been a little bit familiar with these Establishment Clause cases since 1994 when I took a Legal Research & Writing course at Georgetown Law School. Our final class project was on this issue. Each of these cases is fact specific. In our case, we have a “replacement” cross of no historical significance, its existence barely even acknowledged in the city’s own December 2011 Bayview Park Master Plan. The first cross erected in April 1941 would have historical significance if anyone knows where it is. The current cross is owned by the city, rests on city-owned land and is maintained using public monies. Those facts are very different from the case involving the Jesus statute in Montana. How have federal courts ruled in cases where the facts match those of the Bayview Park cross? Judge Vinson’s ruling seems to correctly apply the law of the land as it now exists to the specific facts of this case. We can presume that if a case had been decided with facts similar to the Bayview Park cross, Beggs & Lane would have made it part of their case. Perhaps The Pulse could review the city’s response to the complaint and see which decisions it cites in support.

Events

Event Details

The Westside Redevelopment Board was established pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statute 163.2517 (2)(a)(b) regarding a community participation process that provides for the ongoing involvement of stakeholder groups in

Event Details

The Westside Redevelopment Board was established pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statute 163.2517 (2)(a)(b) regarding a community participation process that provides for the ongoing involvement of stakeholder groups in urban infill and redevelopment areas. (Ord. #33-14 adopted 9/11/14)

Event Details

The commission generally meets in regular session to vote on agenda items beginning at 9 a.m. on first Thursday and 5:30 p.m. on the third Thursday of each month. A

Event Details

The commission generally meets in regular session to vote on agenda items beginning at 9 a.m. on first Thursday and 5:30 p.m. on the third Thursday of each month. A public forum is held prior to these meetings at 8:30 a.m. or 4:30 p.m., where the public is invited to attend and speak on the topic of their choice for three minutes.